Proposed Overhaul Of The NBA Draft Would Eliminate Tanking. Should NHL consider?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

My problem has never been the bad teams getting high picks. Bad teams NEED high picks; good teams don't.

However, I do have a problem with multiple high picks in a row. I'm sick of seeing Edmonton, Florida, and the Islanders always picking top 5.

I'd like to see something like: You cannot pick 1st overall two years in a row and you cannot pick top 5 three years in a row.

As it is now that's a lot of wasted top picks going to a team that continually losing. Some players going through the Edmonton system may never reach their potential. Pretty much wastes it for other teams in the league that actually need to benefit.

[itsmagic]

If the primary reasoning for this proposal is to eliminate 'tanking' as a coaching/management strategy then it is a solution for a non-existent problem in the NHL.

There is no evidence to support it. The fact that a large number of anonymous Internet bloggers assert that NHL teams 'tank' shows only a text book example of a cognitive bias known as an "availability cascade". By definition this bias is a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true"). Source: Wikipedia

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

what constitutes success? playoffs? division titles? stanley cups?
If it's Stanley Cup, that will be tough since only one is given out a year and there are at least 10 teams rebuilding.

Success can be defined arbitrarily...but I'd say wins and/or playoff wins would be as good as anything.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by itsmagic

If the primary reasoning for this proposal is to eliminate 'tanking' as a coaching/management strategy then it is a solution for a non-existent problem in the NHL.

There is no evidence to support it. The fact that a large number of anonymous Internet bloggers assert that NHL teams 'tank' shows only a text book example of a cognitive bias known as an "availability cascade". By definition this bias is a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true"). Source: Wikipedia

Right...

However by giving better assets to less successful team you are incentivizing poor performance.

And any system that gives a bonus for suckage is questionable.

Because it will start to creep into peoples decision making at some level, at least by allowing an 'oh well at least we get a draft pick' attitude.

[Cuz]

This system only makes sense, IMO, if the talent pool in each draft is equal, and we know there is an ebb and flow to the talent level for the draft.

[CSharp]

Let the Flames tank for another 2 seasons and then set the rule straight in the NHL after that.

[afc wimbledon]

Ok small point, how does this system prevent players declaring or withdrawing eligability for the draft in order to lock up a good team and avoid next years crappy team, I can see this system encouraging way more gaming by the players.

[Reign of Fire]

Originally Posted by Joborule

http://deadspin.com/proposed-overhau...ank-1488525333

What do you think? Is it something the NHL should consider?

This would never get accepted in Stern era.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Ok small point, how does this system prevent players declaring or withdrawing eligability for the draft in order to lock up a good team and avoid next years crappy team, I can see this system encouraging way more gaming by the players.

That is certainly a flaw in this idea for the NBA.

As I understand it, a player must be out of high school for at least one year before declaring himself eligible for the draft (he doesn't have to play college ball during that year, but that's the idea). He can choose to declare after any year of college, so he basically has 4 years to choose from. If a player is a guaranteed first overall pick, he could look at the next four teams in line to pick first overall, and choose the one that best suits him.

For this to work as intended, the NBA would likely have to change its eligibility rules to be similar to the NHL, where players become eligible based on their ages on a specific date.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by getbak

That is certainly a flaw in this idea for the NBA.

As I understand it, a player must be out of high school for at least one year before declaring himself eligible for the draft (he doesn't have to play college ball during that year, but that's the idea). He can choose to declare after any year of college, so he basically has 4 years to choose from. If a player is a guaranteed first overall pick, he could look at the next four teams in line to pick first overall, and choose the one that best suits him.

For this to work as intended, the NBA would likely have to change its eligibility rules to be similar to the NHL, where players become eligible based on their ages on a specific date.

No player would wait more than a single season. Not a chance, the risk of injury and the financial reward for coming out of college - particularly for a #1 overall pick - are far too great.

A #1 pick gets about 20 million over four years, plus tens of millions more dollars in endorsements. A college player gets nothing other than the chance to injure themselves every single night.

There may be a rare case of a player deciding to wait a single year to declare eligibility, but it would almost never be a problem.

[Mister Yamoto]

Bob Mccown proposed this format a couple of years ago and I am actually kind of curious as to how it would work out. It would logistically work better in a 32 team league though.

All 30 teams make the playoffs.

The 2 conference winners get a bye for round 1. Leaving 28 teams. 1 plays 28, 2 plays 27 etc. Round 1 is a best of 3 with the top seeded team getting ALL 3 GAMES AT HOME.

14 teams are then re seeded into the Stanley Cup Playoffs with the 2 regular season conference champions. Those 16 teams would play four 7 game rounds of playoffs for the Stanley cup.

The 14 round 1 losers then play for the 1st overall pick. Not sure what the format should be but I would suggest a round robin with only the top 4 advancing.

Disadvantages

- Kind of makes the regular season a farce (but if the Flames are going to pitch slogans like Every Game Matters it sorta works)
- You could not make this drastic of a change until at least the 2020 CBA

Advantages

- Perhaps the most interesting playoff format in all of sports
- Expanded playoffs means more teams involved, and more great memories for the fans
- Comepletely changes the dynamics of the trade deadline
- Big cash grab for the players and owners (and if the last two lock out have taught us anything, that is really what they are all about)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by pylon

If they adopt this, they have to commit to it for 30 years come hell or high water. Or else it is unfair for the teams that gets jipped out of their first pick the year they cancel it.

That's why it's a bad idea. Chances are, it would last for about 10 years or so before the league realizes that if it doesn't send more talent to the bottom-feeders it'll have to contract them.

There are better was to improve the draft order.

[stignasty]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...6362--nhl.html

"At the very least, Brian Burke would love it."

[Matty81]

I hate the draft period. Rewarding loser teams is bad enough, but the fact that every team ends up with guys with no connection to their city is even worse.

I think the old territorial model where each team had their territory including their own city and had to develop their own players through an academy system was way better, your team ends up made up of locals and excellence is rewarded.

North American sports and the obsession with propping up losing teams is a joke. People don't support your business and you can't balance the books, you should go under, not get bail outs. Of course will never happen because the NHL would end up a 16-20 team league.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I hate the draft period. Rewarding loser teams is bad enough, but the fact that every team ends up with guys with no connection to their city is even worse.

I think the old territorial model where each team had their territory including their own city and had to develop their own players through an academy system was way better, your team ends up made up of locals and excellence is rewarded.

North American sports and the obsession with propping up losing teams is a joke. People don't support your business and you can't balance the books, you should go under, not get bail outs. Of course will never happen because the NHL would end up a 16-20 team league.

I agree with this in theory and would love it if it could work, but there are about 10 teams that would have no chance of surviving if this happened. Hockey is still a niche sport that is trying to pretend it isn't.

[GGG]

i would like to see a simple rule of the sum of your draft positions in consecutive years can't be more than 6 and can't be more than 10 in 3 consecutive seasons.

The reason for this isn't to eliminate tanking. But to eliminate the problem of Lag. It takes 3 years for players to make a real impact on a team. During that 3 years the team get 2 more high picks which causes them to overshoot and become too good.

So the best you could draft over 3 years would be 1,7,2. And over 2 years 2,4 or 1,5. It keeps talent going to poor teams but at least moves it around a bit.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree with this in theory and would love it if it could work, but there are about 10 teams that would have no chance of surviving if this happened. Hockey is still a niche sport that is trying to pretend it isn't.

To be honest I hate sun belt teams where there is not hockey anyway but recruiting 20 talented local kids every 2 years from cities of those sizes is a possibility. I'm not talking about drafting the 20 best local junior players produced by local teams/colleges at the end of their development, more of an academy system like they use in soccer where you teach talented athletes how to play after taking them into the system real young.

Then set up a system to allocate/sign guys from outside the academies, ncaa and euros. A draft there wouldn't bug me so much, as long as the main system becomes more of a meritocracy and some of the players are actually from the communities.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

For example, I like the fact the NHL has gone back to a divisional playoff system, at least it's something different from the NBA which is a stupid league.

Yup, I love the old divisional system being back. Best way to build rivalries.

One area where the NBA did it better than the NHL was in their playoff format for division winners. If you win your division, it guarantees you a playoff spot. But that's it. If you win your division but had less points than the 8th playoff seed, you become the 8th playoff seed. So much better than the SE winner being 3rd every year. But of course the new divisional playoff format has minimized that problem now anyway..

[Parallex]

Seems like a silly idea to me.

I get wanting to remove or minimize any incentive to tanking but ideally you want a league where every team can be competative and considering that poor teams are already not choice destinations for free agents, nor likely to find their way onto players with NTC's "will allow a trade to..." list the draft is the only means they have of getting potentially elite talent. I find the thought of the league champions somehow getting the 1st overall pick to be terrible.

If I were the NHL I'd stick with the system they have now except I'd make the top 14 picks (A.K.A. All non-playoff team) all determined by lotto ball (Draw for each pick). That way the worst team in the NHL isn't guarenteed pick one or two, they could pick as low as 14th (they'd still get more balls in the hopper so more likely to pick high but not guarenteed).

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I hate the draft period. Rewarding loser teams is bad enough, but the fact that every team ends up with guys with no connection to their city is even worse.

I think the old territorial model where each team had their territory including their own city and had to develop their own players through an academy system was way better, your team ends up made up of locals and excellence is rewarded.

North American sports and the obsession with propping up losing teams is a joke. People don't support your business and you can't balance the books, you should go under, not get bail outs. Of course will never happen because the NHL would end up a 16-20 team league.

Geography shows that this has no chance of happening. Would Boston get all European players since they are the closest? Edmonton get everyone North of Red Deer, including Alaska?

Was there ever a system where teams homegrew their teams locally?